Law and reality in publishing (seldom the same thing) from the author's side of the slush pile, with occasional forays into politics, military affairs, censorship and the First Amendment, legal theory, and anything else that strikes me as interesting.

10 January 2006

Artifacts

One of the core requirements in copyright law (or, at least, US copyright law, and increasingly in the purely copyright law elsewheresui generis database protection notwithstanding) is "originality." The necessary quantum of originality is extremely low. Dealing with databases makes this question rather clear; as the Supreme Court held a decade and a half ago,

[T]he originality requirement is not particularly stringent. A compiler may settle upon a selection or arrangement that others have used; novelty is not required. Originality requires only that the author make the selection or arrangement independently (i.e., without copying that selection or arrangement from another work), and that it display some minimal level of creativity. Presumably, the vast majority of compilations will pass this test, but not all will. There remains a narrow category of works in which the creative spark is utterly lacking or so trivial as to be virtually nonexistent.Such works are incapable of sustaining a valid copyright.

Even if a work qualifies as a copyrightable compilation, it receives only limited protection. This is the point of § 103 of the Act. Section 103 explains that "[t]he subject matter of copyright … includes compilations," but that copyright protects only the author's original contributions  not the facts or information conveyed…. As § 103 makes clear, copyright is not a tool by which a compilation author may keep others from using the facts or data he or she has collected…. The 1909 Act did not require, as "sweat of the brow" courts mistakenly assumed, that each subsequent compiler must start from scratch, and is precluded from relying on research undertaken by another. Rather, the facts contained in existing works may be freely copied, because copyright protects only the elements that owe their origin to the compiler  the selection, coordination, and arrangement of facts.1

The interesting copyright question, though, is implied by the problems that many museums are currently having with cultural artifacts.

Today, visitors to Machu Picchu see well-preserved ruins hidden among the majestic Andes: complete with palaces, baths, temples, tombs, sundials, and agricultural terraces, and also llamas roaming among hundreds of gray granite houses. But they won't find too many bowls, tools, ritual objects, or other artifacts used by the Incas of the late 1400s. To see those, they have to travel to New Haven, Conn[ecticut]. Yale historian Hiram Bingham rediscovered Machu Picchu in 1911, and, backed by the National Geographic Society, returned with large expeditions in 1912 and 1915, each time carting out  with supposed special permission from Peruvian President Augusto B. Leguña  crates filled with archeological finds. But now, Peru is threatening to sue the Ivy League school, claiming the permission was either given illegally or misunderstood. The "treasures of Machu Picchu," states David Ugarte, regional director of Peru's National Culture Institute (INC), were given to the American explorer "on loan."

Danna Harman, "90 Years Later, Peru Battles Yale Over Incan Artifacts," CSM (29 Dec 2005) (fake paragraphing removed for clarity). This should bring to mind a little bit of the South Africa/Disney controversy, and in the broader sense other possessory transformations of culture. Consider, for example, Disney's Sleeping Beauty. The film is basedat least in part, before all the singingupon the Northwest European folktale versions, leaving out the most salacious (and bloody) parts. In each instance, the particular source tellings were long out of copyright when Disney began work on its version. That, however, leads to several questions:

What right does Disney have to exclude others from reusing the same source material? And how much?

What right might either Disney or a third party have to reuse source material of the same tale, but from other cultures (the Russian version of Sleeping Beauty is particularly chilling)?

And, most interestingly: What claim might the descendants of the source cultures have upon the retellings?

That third question is the hard one. A hypothetical instance other than Sleeping Beauty might make it clearer. Consider a wildly successful film based upon a unique, centuries-old African tribal tale. The film is as literal a translation as one can imaginewith the single exception that, because it is a film at all, it violates cultural precepts concerning the "stealing of the soul" through photography. Copyright law would vest copyright in the film's producers.2 However, must the producers somehow share their creation with the the tribal descendants? Is there an appropriation here sufficient to make this particular example more like the museum controversies than just another remake of the legend of Alexander the Great? Are these rhetorical questions ever going to end?

The Fine Print

Ritual disclaimer: This blog contains legal commentary, but it is only general commentary. It does not constitute legal advice for your situation. It does not create an attorney-client relationship or any other expectation of confidentiality, nor is it an offer of representation.

I approve of no advertising appearing on or through syndication for anything other than the syndication itself; any such advertising violates the limited reuse license implied by voluntarily including syndication code on this blawg, and I do not approve aggregators and syndicators whose page design reflects only an intent to use the reference(s) to this blawg without actually providing the content from this blawg.

Internet link sausages, as frequently appear here, are gathered from uninspected meaty internet products and byproducts via processes you really, really don't want to observe; spiced with my own secret, snarky, sarcastic blend; quite possibly extended with sawdust or other indigestibles; and stuffed into your monitor (instead of either real or artificial casings). They're sort of like "link salad" or "pot pourri" or "miscellaneous musings" (or, for that matter, "making law"), but far more disturbing.

I am not responsible for any changes to your lipid counts or blood pressure from consuming these sausages... nor for your monitor if you insist on covering them with mash or sauce.

Blog Archive

Warped Weft

Now live at the new site. I have arranged some of the more infamous threads that have appeared here by unravelling them from the blawg tapestry (and hopefully eliminating some of the sillier typos). Sometimes, the threads have been slightly reordered for clarity.

Other Blawgs, Blogs, and Journals

These may be of interest; I do not necessarily agree with opinions expressed in them, although the reasoning and writing are almost always first-rate (and represent a standard seldom, if ever, achieved in "mainstream" journalism). I'm picky, and have eclectic tastes, so don't expect a comprehensive listing.

How Appealing is aimed at appellate lawyers and legal news in general. If you care about the state of the law, start here — Howard's commentary is far better balanced, better informed, and better considered than any of the media outlets. To concentrate on the US Supreme Court, don't forget SCOTUSBlog.

Some academics' blawgs with a variety of political (and doctrinal) viewpoints:

The main European IP blawg of interest remains the UK-based IPKat, on a variety of intellectual property issues, with some overlap (with a less Eurocentric view) at IPFinance

The American Constitution Society blawg is a purportedly "liberal" counterweight to the so-called "Federalist Society" (which, despite its claims, should be called "Tory Society") that has yet to establish much coherence... but maybe that's all to the good.

Approximate Views

(page impressions since the last time the server's counters were reset, at present early 2007)